Town residents up in arms over land division

Residents who packed Town Hall last week to oppose what they characterized as a rural subdivision did not stop the Town of Saukville Plan Commission from recommending a proposed land division to the Town Board.

The board on Tuesday, however, tabled a vote on the division after members requested clarification on a road frontage issue. The proposal will come back to the board next month.

The land division, which would turn a 22-acre parcel on East Hawthorne Road into four lots and clears the way for residential construction on those lots in addition to two neighboring ones, has been met with hostility from residents who view it as a subdivision and  a harbinger of the suburbanization of the town.

Town Chairman Kevin Kimmes said the biggest concern he’s heard — from both the more than 75 emails he received on the issue and a mailer signed by 30 citizens sent to every town resident — was that the division would set the precedent of allowing subdivisions in the town.

But that, he said, isn’t true.

“The anxiety from residents I’ve heard over subdivisions in the town is misdirected and it has been upsetting,” he said. “We do not allow subdivisions. Period.”

He said the proposed division is by definition not a subdivision, since it only divides the parcel into four lots instead of the five or more that legally constitutes a subdivision.

Additionally, he said, town ordinances expressly allow for land divisions that create parcels as small as five acres.

But many residents said the project still feels like a subdivision even if it doesn’t meet the technical specifications.

“These concerns we all have are irregardless of how many lots your talking about,” resident Robin Parsons said. “We live in the country for the rural character. We don’t want homes everywhere. By my definition, this is a subdivision.”

Plan Commission member Mike Denzien, who cast the only vote against the division, said the proposal met the spirit if not the letter of what a subdivision is.

He said the town’s land division ordinance was meant to allow family to break off parcels for other family members or make large divisions for sale.

It wasn’t intended to allow divisions down “to the smallest amount possible,” he said.

“I believe the threat to the township is there,” he said, adding residents’ fears that the town will “disintegrate” have some merit.

However, the rest of the commission members were reticent about denying the division they argued does not violate town ordinances or its comprehensive plan.

“What are the reasons this can be denied besides, ‘I don’t like it?’” Kimmes asked.

He said the town has a long history of allowing five acre lots. The town allows a parcel to be divided into as many as four lots every five years.

Kimmes pointed out that more than half of the residents who emailed him to complain about the proposed division live on 5-acre lots.

“That is saying, ‘I want to come in the door and prevent others from coming,’” he said.

Kimmes said he thinks residents are shocked by the proposal because it could involve the construction of six new homes on the properties.

But, the groundwork that allows for that many homes to be built was set two decades ago, he said.

He said the division proposal is simply the second step of a previous one approved in 2001, noting the town map even includes a cul-de-sac easement on the property.

“It looks like a subdivision but in reality it was created over the course of 20 years,” he said. “It didn’t just pop up. This isn’t a surprise.”

Several commission members said they were concerned that rejecting the division could get the town into legal trouble.

“This is the law of the town right now, and I don’t know how you can say it doesn’t apply,” Commission member Marcia Nosko said.“What I am concerned about is that this could end up in court if we deny it.”

Commission member Amy Cottrell agreed.

“We can’t stop division for some people and allow it for others,” she said. “We established what we wanted to do as a township and we can’t change that now that we see this development in front of us.”

The town’s lawyer, Michael Herbrand, weighed in.

“Generally speaking, if you’re going to deny something, you’re going to have to show how the request doesn’t meet the specification of your code,” he said. “The law doesn’t say you can only do something if your neighbors agree with it.”

The applicant, Laura Logan, said resident’s concerns about the division are overblown.

The properties would remain heavily wooded, she said, with a private access road leading into the forest.

Kimmes said the town’s comprehensive plan, the planning for which included an open house and survey of residents, was designed with the idea of allowing slow, controlled growth through processes like five-acre divisions.

“We came up with a vision for the community and implemented it,” he said. “This is not my vision. This comprehensive plan was built on your input.”

During that process, residents told the town they wanted to be able to divide their properties for family or for profit — within moderation, Kimmes said.

Kimmes said one resident even told him that he wants to be able to divide his property to pay off medical debt.

The town could, like the Town of Belgium, allow divisions only as much as  35 acres, Kimmes said, but he didn’t think residents would support that.

As part of the process to divide Logan’s parcel, the properties were removed from the town’s working lands designation that was created last year.

While residents have said the removal betrays the purpose of the designation, Kimmes said the designation was intended to protect farmers, not prevent growth.

“It was really adopted as a backlash to what we are seeing in Trenton. They had new people come in and tell the Roden family they were against their operation,” he said, referring to a family farm.

Kimmes, Denzien and a couple other commission members said they were willing to re-examine the town’s ordinances and comprehensive plan.

“If there’s enough of an uprising saying that, ‘We didn’t realize what we adopted and we want to revise it,’ then sure. But you need to decide where you don’t want five-acre lots or only want 10-acre lots or other sized lots,” Kimmes said.

Kimmes said that during the planning process, he proposed restricting lot divisions to 10-acres or more around sensitive areas like the Cedarburg Bog State Natural Area, but his idea was rejected by residents.